Marxism Socialism Communismand all the other “isms” of Marx.

I grow so weary with arguing social-science terminology regarding the idiotic blithering and blathering of that old deadbeat malcontent, Karl Marx, a spoiled brat who thought the world owed him a living because he was, well, Karl Marx, and therefore special. See the various submissions and arguments following the three biggest Marx links on this Website, at Definition of MarxismArguments Refuting MarxismThis is Marxism.

Contributors present arguments after those pages that, primarily and most often, focus on “correct” usage of social science terms such as Marxism, Socialism and Communism, and other “personalized” versions of Socialism, such as Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Maoism and so forth. Secondarily, but also quite often, the argument offered will address whether Marx was a philosopher, an economist, a scientist, or – what I claim he was – a very educated, elitist, well spoken, very wordy, nut-burger. A popular screwball. A real hit with the avant garde among elitist pseudo-sophisticates who were educated beyond their intelligence.

But here’s the thing: Neither Socialism, as Marx defined it, nor Communism, which Marx invented, exist, nor have they ever existed. They have never been observed by man and they are quite impossible. That’s why I lump them all together and just call them Marxism; I could just as accurately refer to them as eco-nutty-ism, or socio-stupid-ism. I went over all of this in more detail in the The Great Communist Lie page and I’m not going to repeat all that again here.

Suffice it to say that Communism has never existed, and will never exist, because it is quite impossible. Marxist-Socialism similarly has never existed, and will never exist, because it is quite impossible. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat Marx defined as the necessary stepping stone on the evolutionary path to Communism, which is utopia: society perfected; the worker’s paradise. Go to the link for the details, or read the Communist Manifesto if you prefer. It’s all bunk.

Marxism fails as a philosophy, because it is clearly false and is just loaded with errors of fact. It drives toward an object that is obviously impossible to achieve and it depends upon “truths” that are falsehoods. It seeks to change the nature of man to suite the needs of the imagined perfected society of men, and does not recognize that if you change the nature of man he is no longer man. Marxism opposes nature.

Marxism fails as an economic theory in every aspect of economics. It completely lacks any kind of automatic price determinant, meaning that the state (the collective) will have to periodically and continually set the price for everything – every single thing – that is ever brought to market, including goods, services, labor, transportation, and every single related cost. And it cannot establish an automatic price determinant without betraying it’s founding principles. This is a fatal flaw. It directly opposes the natural law of supply and demand that would automatically set the price of everything without any intervention. The rest of Marx’s economic theory is nothing but a bunch of warmed over eco-verbage.

"From the viewpoint of pure economic theory, Karl Marx can be regarded as a minor post-Ricardian". – Paul Samuelson. No one among the world’s leading economists took Marx seriously; he contributed nothing whatsoever to the field of economics.

As a science, Marxism isn’t even worth discussing. Political scientists may disagree with that, because Marxism has proved a great way for a dictator to get himself into power. So it might represent a major breakthrough in political science that would be of great interest to all would-be barbarians.

Which brings us to the Personality Marxists. You got your Marxist-Leninists, and your Stalinists, and your Maoists, and so forth. Even Hitler was a Marxist. I submit that the only real differences between any of them involved their personalities and personal preferences, and the political realities that surrounded them at the historical moment they arrived at power. They all had global aspirations. Do not think that National Socialism did not have international intentions similar to Communism; if Hitler was only interested in Germany he would not have invaded Poland in the first place, kicking off WWII. He knew full well what would happen before he did it, and he did it.

Marxism = Socialism = Communism = Leninism = Stalinism = Maoism.

Everybody thinks of Lenin as a Socialist, and refers to the Soviet Union as a Socialist government system. But Lenin referred to himself as a Communist; he referred to Russia as Communist; he referred to his government as Communist; the name of his political Party was the Communist Party. What he was referring to was the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engles. That makes him a Marxist.

Stalin, whose regime was called Socialist, referred to himself as a Communist, to Russia and the Soviet Union as Communist, to his government as Communist, and the name of his political Party was the Communist Party. What he was referring to was the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engles. That makes him a Marxist.

Mao, whose regime was called Socialist, referred to himself as a Communist, to China as Communist, to his government as Communist, and the name of his political Party was the Communist Party. What he was referring to was the Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engles. That makes him a Marxist.

I could keep this up until I run out of Marxist dictators, which is what every one of these men were. Ho. Castro. Pol. Sung. Etc. Outsiders all called them Socialists; they called themselves Communists; they followed the writings of Marx.

I like to keep it simple. They’re all Marxist dictators, pure and simple. Their governments were or are dictatorships, pure and simple. They all have or had one rule, and everybody under them fully understood it: Do as I say or I’ll kill you. Very simple. Nothing to it.

I just use the term Marxist for all of them. And that includes dear leader Comrade Obama, peace be upon him.